Run up the Score to facilitate "Rightsizing"

[youngblood08]

IMO...make these big association field more A teams. We don't need a class system in Youth hockey.

No? Why don't we need a class system? Because it would make the weaker teams feel bad?

Why penalize your top players? I feel your top players get better playing against top players. Do we want to develop average players or top National players? A top player needs to play against other top players. Creating parity by watering down the A level (or top level) only benefits the average player. At least everyone will be happy. Maybe we should cater to the average and below average players even more. We should create a lighter puck for the younger ages so the average player can look good by scoring in the upper corner.

You have parity at the top not in the middle and below. Look at the State teams the past 5 years even look at the Regional tams the past 5-8 yrs. It is all the same. Edina, MG/Osseo, Wayzata, WBL, Eden Prarie, Woodbury,Lakeville. The same teams year in year out and what do they all have in common? They are the biggest aasociations in the State. Making these teams field 2 A teams would not hurt much at all Lakeville does it and I believe Woodbury will be doing it next season.

[O-townClown]

Townoclown,
depends on the#'s at that level. 22 skaters..easy two teams. What do you do with 18 skaters like we had at Bantams this year ? We moved 3
9th graders up to high school and played A with 15 great kids but different
abilities. Tough to compete & develope all your kids.

I'm on record for advocating smaller rosters. Not knowing where you are and how competitive the competition is, I want to say two teams (one A, one B2/B1/C or whatever makes sense) with 9 skaters each. Fewer games probably.

Maybe that wouldn't work and what you did was the only option.

[DKS1962]

We have 2 classes in high school hockey for a reason. No.. ..not so the smaller schools can feel good about going to state but to give the smaller schools a chance to compete with programs of equal size.

Thats not happening at the youth hockey level. The same large associations are going to state at A and sometimes 2 teams at the B level.

I am not knocking the big associations. They have great programs top to bottom & I applaud them.

Coming from a small association we play these big programs and just making it to regions is an accomplishment. up side we will not have to compete against these teams at the high school level.

[Whatthe]

Long ago, MH decided to have a "community based" model as opposed to a "club team" model. It is no secret that a handful of "communities" have such large youth numbers that they are on par with club teams. They win almost every district play-off at every level. They regularly pound neighboring communities. They fight any effort to structure their teams so that their teams are competitive with neighboring communities.

The key argument against fielding 2 A teams is that 2 A teams supposedly hurts the development of "elite" players.

At the same time MH allows 1 A team from these associations so the "elite" players does not have to play with "low end" teammates, rules force a top player from a smaller association to stay in his community to play with players with far lower skills (and get pounded by the large association).

Like any other youth athetics body, MH needs to manage the situtation. Step up, structure and support the "community based" model so that there is meaningful competition or ditch the "community based" model and let families go play wherever they choose.

[youngblood08]

Youth hockey is all based on the size of your player base.

This is Bantam A State championships past 15 years. It's dominated by size.

1995 at Moorhead.............................................(C) Anoka............................(R) Rochester John Marshall
1996 at Edina..............................................(C) Duluth East...............................(R) Osseo/Maple Grove
1997 at East Grand Forks......................(C) Osseo/Maple Grove..............................(R) White Bear Lake
1998 at Minneapolis.....................................(C) Eden Prairie....................................(R) White Bear Lake
1999 at International Falls........................(C) Rochester North.....................................(R) Brooklyn Park
2000 at South St Paul..................................(C) Eden Prairie..............................................(R) Alexandria
2001 at Willmar.............................................(C) Centennial.....................................(R) White Bear Lake
2002 at Blaine.................................................(C) Wayzata...................................................(R) Roseville
2003 at Cloquet.......................................(C) White Bear Lake.........................................(R) Centennial
2004 at Stillwater...........................................(C) Moorhead..............................................(R) Duluth East
2005 at New Ulm..............................................(C) Edina..................................................(R) Centennial
2006 at New Hope........................................(C) Centennial......................................................(R) Edina
2007 at Alexandria.......................................(C) Eden Prairie.............................................(R) Centennial
2008 at Edina..............................................(C) Eden Prairie.............................................(R) Centennial

[muckandgrind]

This is the same argument I've been making for quite some time. Does anyone not from the Wayzata association have any idea of how much geographical territory that association actually covers? They could EASILY break Wayzata into two separate associations just like Lakeville did, and instead of having one "ultra-dominant" association, they would just have two dominant associations.

To those who said that the purpose of MH is to support only the elite players, you are extremely misguided. The purpose of youth hockey is to support ALL hockey players, whether they be elite, good, average, or recreational. Forcing Wayzata to put two 'A' teams on the ice would not hamper the development of their elite players in any fashion as the next best 15 skaters they have would make virtually any other 'A' team in the state of Minnesota.

I don't know what the perfect solution is, or even if there even IS a perfect solution to this problem...but it definitely needs to be looked at because presently, there is no competitive balance in this State.

[icedad]

They could EASILY break Wayzata into two separate associations just like Lakeville did, ...

First, Lakeville split because they now have two high schools. As soon as Wayzata HS splits we can talk.

Second, if Wayzata is such a problem and is this "ultra-dominant" association, why are they only listed once as a champion OR runner-up on the Bantam history listed above?

Solution- two tier A teams roughly along HS lines.

[HockeyReality]

First of all this is a great topic. Reading the responses, it may look like a number of solutions. Great idea on limiting the team sizes. I esecially believe at the squirt level, teams should only be 10-12 players. Then I am all for fielding as many A teams as you can. It is interesting for those who point towards Wayzata as the "Great Empire". If Bush were still in power, he would label them the Axis of Evil. I am trying to find out how many times they won the HS state championship. Also the other big power house in youth hockey, Centennial. How many times have they won it at the HS level. What is working for them at the youth level is obviously not working for them at the HS level. St. Cloud tried to field two A teams a couple of years ago. They pulled the plug on it prematurely. The two class system may work. It really comes down to economics. Hockey is an expensive sport. In order to compete you need money and numbers. Both go hand and hand. Why force successful organizations to dilute their teams. They have built their membership and they bring in good coaches. Why shouldn't we look at how we can bring the others up to the same level instead of bringing the top down?

[muckandgrind]

They could EASILY break Wayzata into two separate associations just like Lakeville did, ...

First, Lakeville split because they now have two high schools. As soon as Wayzata HS splits we can talk.

Second, if Wayzata is such a problem and is this "ultra-dominant" association, why are they only listed as a champion OR runner-up on the Bantam history listed above?

Solution- two tier A teams roughly along HS lines.

I was only using Wayzata as an example of an association that is huge compared to all others. And don't confuse youth hockey with high school hockey. If you are a member of the WYHA, then I'm sure you are aware that many kids growing up playing Wayata hockey move on to other high schools like Breck, Benilde, etc., which is why Wazata doesn' have a stellar HS tournament records.

The point is that the youth State tournament is dominated by large associations and that there is no competitive balance whatsoever. Little League baseball requires that each association create a charter for every x number of players or people living within the area of that association. The charter essentially represents an all-star team that plays for the opportunity of making it to the LLWS. MH Hockey could do the same thing, instead of creating a charter, they require the large associations to have multiple 'A" teams if there numbers reach a certain platitude. For example: associations under 400 skaters have 1 'A' team and associations over 400 skaters have 2 'A' teams.

Like I said before, I'm not sure what the perfect solution is....

[icedad]

And don't confuse youth hockey with high school hockey. If you are a member of the WYHA, then I'm sure you are aware that many kids growing up playing Wayata hockey move on to other high schools like Breck, Benilde, etc., which is why Wazata doesn't have a stellar HS tournament records.

Actually I'm not confused. That IS how youth teams are aligned. And when Lakeville got another HS, they split. Not sure of the relevance of kids leaving for private school, but that happens all over.

[Toomuchtoosoon]

If you are a member of the WYHA, then I'm sure you are aware that many kids growing up playing Wayata hockey move on to other high schools like Breck, Benilde, etc., which is why Wazata doesn' have a stellar HS tournament records.

This is precisely why Wayzata should consider 2 A teams. Since the association provides players to many different schools, they should provide the opportunity at younger ages to have more competition. Too many throw away games in the district. You usually see the smaller associations gain ground by the end of the year. If you look at the records this year, Bantams and Squirts could have put together two very competitive A teams in the district, PeeWee Bs seem a little down this year and were probably allocated correctly.

The lack of success in high school may also have to do with the early maturers or kids that get a lot more ice time when they are mites and squirts kind of have the inside track on the A teams all through their youth hockey experience, and the late developers or seasonal hockey players get left behind. It is usually these late developers that have the highest ceiling, but they may give it up if they are always put on B teams and never get challenged throughout the year.

Who knows, but this is a good discussion.

[Chuck Norris Fan]

Youth hockey is all based on the size of your player base.

This is Bantam A State championships past 15 years. It's dominated by size.

1995 at Moorhead.............................................(C) Anoka............................(R) Rochester John Marshall
1996 at Edina..............................................(C) Duluth East...............................(R) Osseo/Maple Grove
1997 at East Grand Forks......................(C) Osseo/Maple Grove..............................(R) White Bear Lake
1998 at Minneapolis.....................................(C) Eden Prairie....................................(R) White Bear Lake
1999 at International Falls........................(C) Rochester North.....................................(R) Brooklyn Park
2000 at South St Paul..................................(C) Eden Prairie..............................................(R) Alexandria
2001 at Willmar.............................................(C) Centennial.....................................(R) White Bear Lake
2002 at Blaine.................................................(C) Wayzata...................................................(R) Roseville
2003 at Cloquet.......................................(C) White Bear Lake.........................................(R) Centennial
2004 at Stillwater...........................................(C) Moorhead..............................................(R) Duluth East
2005 at New Ulm..............................................(C) Edina..................................................(R) Centennial
2006 at New Hope........................................(C) Centennial......................................................(R) Edina
2007 at Alexandria.......................................(C) Eden Prairie.............................................(R) Centennial
2008 at Edina..............................................(C) Eden Prairie.............................................(R) Centennial

WOW GO Centennial, EP, White Bear, and Edina. That is impressive.

I noticed for all the talk of how dominate Wayzata has been they have only made the final game once in the last 15 years. They should totally go to two teams and stop dominating Bantam A hockey! Oh by the way did you know that Centennial had less than 60 skaters tryout this year, weired their association is so big. Oh and the dominate Edina and EP didn't make it out of districts.

You know maybe if the other association's high school programs would stop stealing the top kids from the bantam teams these few teams wouldn't dominate the way they do. It has nothing to do with association numbers, but everything to do with taking top 9th graders to HS and leaving the 16th best kid to replace the #1 ranked kid.... that might have some effect. Just think how good Eagan and Apple Valley could be this year if everyone stayed.... oh and by the way they are both in regions and have legit chances for state titles!

[HustleandFlow]

I am having trouble figuring out what relativity private school enrollment has to do with the competitivness of the youth levels. Most don't even start pulling players until 9th grade which is 2nd year Bantams. Then only 2 I can think of that pull earlier off the top of my head are Shattuck and Breck. I am sure there are a couple others but they are the exception not the rule.

I agree with M&G. There may not be a universal solution but the issue needs to be addressed by MH to come up with the best possible compromise. Just like everything else over the last 75 years has evolved so has youth hockey in Minnesota. Cities are aging, old power houses are struggling to keep a program, population growth is expanding, in 10 years St. Cloud will be considered part of the metro area. Youth hockey is not and should not be about winning and losing but lets try to level the playing field in some fashion to create the best environment for development and fun.

[muckandgrind]

Youth hockey is all based on the size of your player base.

This is Bantam A State championships past 15 years. It's dominated by size.

1995 at Moorhead.............................................(C) Anoka............................(R) Rochester John Marshall
1996 at Edina..............................................(C) Duluth East...............................(R) Osseo/Maple Grove
1997 at East Grand Forks......................(C) Osseo/Maple Grove..............................(R) White Bear Lake
1998 at Minneapolis.....................................(C) Eden Prairie....................................(R) White Bear Lake
1999 at International Falls........................(C) Rochester North.....................................(R) Brooklyn Park
2000 at South St Paul..................................(C) Eden Prairie..............................................(R) Alexandria
2001 at Willmar.............................................(C) Centennial.....................................(R) White Bear Lake
2002 at Blaine.................................................(C) Wayzata...................................................(R) Roseville
2003 at Cloquet.......................................(C) White Bear Lake.........................................(R) Centennial
2004 at Stillwater...........................................(C) Moorhead..............................................(R) Duluth East
2005 at New Ulm..............................................(C) Edina..................................................(R) Centennial
2006 at New Hope........................................(C) Centennial......................................................(R) Edina
2007 at Alexandria.......................................(C) Eden Prairie.............................................(R) Centennial
2008 at Edina..............................................(C) Eden Prairie.............................................(R) Centennial

WOW GO Centennial, EP, White Bear, and Edina. That is impressive.

I noticed for all the talk of how dominate Wayzata has been they have only made the final game once in the last 15 years. They should totally go to two teams and stop dominating Bantam A hockey! Oh by the way did you know that Centennial had less than 60 skaters tryout this year, weired their association is so big. Oh and the dominate Edina and EP didn't make it out of districts.

You know maybe if the other association's high school programs would stop stealing the top kids from the bantam teams these few teams wouldn't dominate the way they do. It has nothing to do with association numbers, but everything to do with taking top 9th graders to HS and leaving the 16th best kid to replace the #1 ranked kid.... that might have some effect. Just think how good Eagan and Apple Valley could be this year if everyone stayed.... oh and by the way they are both in regions and have legit chances for state titles!

Plymouth population in 1990: 50,889
Plymouth population in 2007: 71,147

Growth rate of approx 39.8% during the past 19 years, combine that with the fact that the yearly medium household income is among the highest in the metro area (meaning more families (on average) have more mone to spend on hockey than most other localities) and my bet is that you won't be able to make that statement again 15 years from now.

It has nothing to do with association numbers

This is complete BS and you know it. It has most EVERYTHING to do with association numbers. Sure, you can find an occasional example of a smaller association succeeding, but those are only the exceptions that prove the rule.

[Vapor]

Are we really upset that some teams always dominate? We should probably throw Roseau in there too. Their youth teams are always very good. They too should be forced to field two A teams to make it fair for the less priviledged.

Not a good comparison. A small assoc. has at most 30 - 35 go out for their teams...compared to a big Metro association that has 150+ ?? You can get 2 VERY good A teams with 150+ trying out.

[sorno82]

Plymouth population in 1990: 50,889
Plymouth population in 2007: 71,147

Growth rate of approx 39.8% during the past 19 years...My bet is that with the explosion of growth that has occurred in Plymouth, you won't be able to make that statement again!!

You also have sections of Medina and the lower stip of Maple Grove feeding into Wayzata. All upper end neighborhoods with a lot of kids and plenty of resources to support youth hockey.

[puckboy]

can anyone name a large association that is not consistently successful in win/losses. My guess is no. Small associations MIGHT occasionally be competitive but not consistently. Large are almost always competitive. So size is a MAJOR factor .

[no-fly-bys]

It should go by the amount of players tryinig out. Go by the 10% to 15% rule. lets say you have 50 kids trying out at the peewee level. you have between 5 and 8 kids that can play at the top level. 1 A team. Now if you have 100 kids you could have 10- 16 A level players which could easily broken down to 2 A teams. This is just an average. But it does make sense. Lokk at your own teams and do the math, all the teams my kids have played on not only in hockey but baseball also it always works out.

[O-townClown]

So the solution for many is to drag the top programs down so they aren't as strong.

There's no perfect answer. Places like Wayzata, Edina, and White Bear Lake should be applauded for supporting hockey. Obviously finances prohibit many other communities from having similar participation numbers.

Every time I look at this it jumps out that Roseau is a complete aberration. Credit to them for taking drastic measures to ensure that youth hockey is a centerpiece of their community.

[GreekChurch]

So the solution for many is to drag the top programs down so they aren't as strong.

There's no perfect answer. Places like Wayzata, Edina, and White Bear Lake should be applauded for supporting hockey. Obviously finances prohibit many other communities from having similar participation numbers.

Every time I look at this it jumps out that Roseau is a complete aberration. Credit to them for taking drastic measures to ensure that youth hockey is a centerpiece of their community.

If you want parity - yes the larger programs will have to be dragged down. This tread was started because the large associations are tired of blasting the smaller ones. This is not just the smaller associations problem, so to sit on top, and pat youselves on the back for having 3- 5 times the numbers is self defeating in trying to find a solution to the problem you are so tired of. I think some of the smaller associations should be applauded for getting teams on the ice. Associations with 400 or less members go through peaks, and valleys talent wise. The large Associations generally do not, just for the fact of their numbers. Maybe a two tier system is the way to go. Maybe merging three 400 member associations would be the way to go - just for A teams, but to sit on top, and say "Let them eat cake" is not the answer either

[JoeBoy]

So the solution for many is to drag the top programs down so they aren't as strong.

There's no perfect answer. Places like Wayzata, Edina, and White Bear Lake should be applauded for supporting hockey. Obviously finances prohibit many other communities from having similar participation numbers.

Every time I look at this it jumps out that Roseau is a complete aberration. Credit to them for taking drastic measures to ensure that youth hockey is a centerpiece of their community.

So fielding 2 A teams is dragging a program down ? Please, I think your overly dramatic. Wouldn't that be pushing more kids who get to skate with higher caliber of skater and ultimately helping more kids in those associations.

[sorno82]

Otown-

Did Edina produce more good players when they were split east and west, or when combined? Maybe use college level as a criteria for "good".

[pebbles]

If an association were forced to field two A teams, they would undoubtedly have an upper team and a lower team. They might even go with only 12-13 skaters on the upper team, which would probably make it even more successful than it is today with 15 skaters. So now you have created a second A team that can compete with the smaller associations and a superpower A team. Today we realistically have about 20 teams that in any one year could compete for a state championship. Under this scenario, you would probably reduce that pool down to 5-8. Is that what you want?

[puckboy]

there is not 20 teams that have a shot every year- NO WAY. I would say at most 10 teams.

I'm still waiting for someone to point out a large assocaition that is not competitive. Numbers do mean success. I'm not saying if its right or wrong - but it is a fact.

[gohawk4]

Why don't we make everyone happy and have a compromise? We run a two tiered A system. Top programs play in AA. This would include your Wayzata, Edina, OMGHA, etc. Then you have an A level, which is your small associations plus large associations top (current) B1 teams. These teams will be listed as A's now. In districts you play AA and A in one district, saving the problem of not enough teams for district play. At the end of the year the AA teams play in tournaments to determine who goes to state, depending on numbers might skip districts. The A have their district, regions, state tournaments like they do now.

This will give you, top associations get their top A team and the next group can play better competition and both can still be competitive in their leagues and around the state. The smaller associations still play against top level teams, but have a chance to play in state. We develop more players as the top still plays with and against the top. The next best players play against top players and players of equal skill. This gives you more equal games, but also gives teams a chance to develop. The top players develop just as much in this system as they are now, so we aren't hurting their development by diluting the league more than it already is. Wayzata AA would scrimmage and participate in AA tournaments against all the top competition.